Effects of Prison Drug Treatment On Inmate Misconduct

• Author: Gary Zajac,Wayne N. Welsh,Nicole Salamatin,Patrick McGrain
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854806296897
• Published date: 01 May 2007
• Date: 01 May 2007
• Subject Matter: Articles

EFFECTS OF PRISON DRUG TREATMENT
ON INMATE MISCONDUCT:
A Repeated Measures Analysis
WAYNE N. WELSH
Temple University
PATRICK MCGRAIN
DeSales University
NICOLE SALAMATIN
New Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission
GARY ZAJAC
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
A small body of research supports the “treatment hypothesis” that participation in prison treatment programs reduces inmate
misconduct, although methodological weaknesses have limited generalizable conclusions. Using general linear modeling
repeated measures techniques, this study examined pre- and posttreatment misconduct for 1,073 inmates who participated in
therapeutic community (TC) drug treatment (n = 294) or a comparison group (n = 779) at five state prisons. Predictors
included age, length of sentence, drug dependency, and prior and current criminal history. The hypothesis that TC treatment
alone would significantly reduce misconduct over time was not supported. Instead, changes in misconduct over time inter-
acted with individual characteristics and time served posttreatment. The article discusses implications of these results for
treatment policies and future research.
Keywords:
adult offenders; corrections; drug use; drug treatment; rehabilitation
Due to rapidly growing inmate populations and increased movement in prisons, the
consensus among modern penologists is that the modern prison has become more
difficult to manage (French & Gendreau, 2006). Arguably, the primary goals of correctional
administration are to “keep prisoners—keep them in, keep them safe, keep them in line, keep
them healthy, and keep them busy—and do it with fairness, without undue suffering, and as
efficiently as possible” (Logan, 1993, p. 25). High rates of misconduct impair the ability of
the prison to meet these goals, contributing to negative impacts for inmates, correctional
officers, and the prison system.
AUTHORS’ NOTE: The research reported here was supported by Grant 99-CE-VX-0009 from the U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and
Delinquency (PCCD) Subgrant 1999/2000-DS-011188, awarded by the PCCD. Opinions expressed here are
those of the authors and not necessarily of PCCD or the U.S. Department of Justice. Any errors or omissions
are the responsibility of the authors alone. We wish to acknowledge the valuable contribution of Bob Flaherty,
Security Data Analyst for Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, who supplied the misconduct data used in
these analyses. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Wayne N. Welsh, PhD,
Professor, Dept. of Criminal Justice, 5th Floor, Gladfelter Hall (025-02), 1115 West Berks Street Temple
University; Philadelphia, PA19122; e-mail:wwelsh@temple.edu.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 34, No. 5, May 2007 600-615
DOI: 10.1177/0093854806296897
© 2007 American Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
600

---

Welsh et al. / EFFECTS OF PRISON DRUG TREATMENT ON MISCONDUCT
601
For inmates, misconduct contributes to increased risk of injury, impaired delivery of
services, physical and emotional health problems, and loss of privileges (Bottoms, 1999; Gaes
& McGuire, 1985; Goetting & Howsen, 1986; Langan & Pelissier, 2002; Liebling, 1999; Toch,
1977, 1997; Wooldredge, 1991). More serious inmate disciplinary records are associated with
greater lengths of stay in prison and a lower likelihood of parole (Flanagan, 1983).
High rates of misconduct also increase stress on correctional officers and prison adminis-
trators, contributing to higher rates of job dissatisfaction, absenteeism, and turnover (Cullen,
Latessa, Burton, & Lombardo, 1993). Over time, high misconduct exerts systemwide impacts
including increased costs for security technology, hiring and training of correctional officers,
medical treatment, and sick leave (Deitch, Koutsenok, McGrath, Ratelle, & Carleton, 1998;
Goetting & Howsen, 1986; Langan & Pelissier, 2002).
Researchers have used three main models of prisoner adjustment to study misconduct. The
deprivation model argues that the prison environment influences inmate behavior more
strongly than preprison inmate characteristics such as age and criminal history. According to
this model, the prison environment encourages prisonization, or socialization into inmate cul-
ture, which contributes to resisting authority (Craddock, 1996; McCorkle, Miethe, & Drass,
1995; Sykes, 1958; Wellford, 1967). In contrast, the importation model argues that individual
characteristics and experiences prior to incarceration (e.g., age, criminal history) have greater
influence upon the individual’s behavior while in prison (Irwin, 1981; Irwin & Cressey,
1962). More recent research argues for a situational or interactionist model. Situational vari-
ables include the location and setting where an incident occurred, type of inmate housing,
crowding, temperature, time of day, amount of free time available to inmates, relational
distance between inmates and correctional officers (e.g., differences in age and race), and char-
acteristics of other inmates involved in the incident (Flanagan, 1983; Jiang & Fisher-Giorlando,
2002; Steinke, 1991; Wooldredge, 1998; Wright, 1991).
Gendreau, Coggin, and Law (1997) conducted a meta-analysis of 39 prison misconduct
studies generating 677 effect sizes, examining personal characteristics, situational factors, and
actuarial measures (e.g., Level of Service Inventory–Revised [LSI-R]) as predictors. Of the
personal predictors, age, antisocial attitudes and behavior, and criminal history produced the
strongest effect sizes (r > .10). Social achievement (e.g., education), race, and early family
factors were moderate predictors (r = .06-.10). Cognitive abilities, personal distress, and reli-
giousness were weak predictors (r (e.g., custody levels, type of programming) had the strongest mean effect size (r = .26). Of
the actuarial measures, the LSI-R produced the strongest mean effect size (r = .22). Gendreau
et al. (1997, pp. 423-424) advised great caution in interpreting these results:
It must be emphasized that the majority of studies in the database were, regrettably, seriously deficient
in providing elementary information on subjects’ personal characteristics, the nature of the prisons within
which they were housed, and crucial methodological descriptors (e.g., length of follow-up). (Gendreau
et al., 1997, pp. 423-424)
Conversely, participation in prison programs such as work, education, and treatment may
positively affect inmate adjustment to prison and contribute to reduced rates of institutional
misconduct (Collins & Allison, 1983; Hiller, Knight, Broome, & Simpson, 1998; Maguire,
1992; Siddall & Conway, 1988; Wright, 1991). In fact, of several hundred published manage-
ment recommendations for maintaining order in prisons, the most frequently endorsed strategy
has been the provision of treatment programs (Gendreau & Keyes, 2001). Surprisingly,
evaluations of the effect of treatment programs on prison misconduct are rare (French &

---

602
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
Gendreau, 2006), and available research has suffered from limitations including inadequate
comparison groups, inadequate statistical controls, small sample sizes, abbreviated data
collection periods prior to and following treatment, and a lack of statistical significance tests
and/or multivariate analytical techniques.
EFFECTS OF DRUG TREATMENT ON PRISON MISCONDUCT
Recent studies and meta-analyses have reported reduced rates of recidivism due to partici-
pation in prison-based work, education, and treatment programs (French & Gendreau, 2006;
Gaes, Flanagan, Motiuk, & Stewart, 1999; Inciardi, Martin, & Butzin, 2004; Mitchell,
MacKenzie, & Wilson, 2002; Pearson & Lipton, 1999; Prendergast, Hall, Wexler, Melnick, &
Yao, 2004; Wilson, Gallagher, & MacKenzie, 2000). A smaller body of research has also sug-
gested important short-term benefits: Inmates who participate in prison treatment programs
may commit fewer infractions while incarcerated than similar inmates who do not participate.
Innes (1997) examined misconduct rates (before and after) among 462 inmates who grad-
uated from a drug and alcohol program (DAP) at four federal penitentiaries. Innes identified
incidents from official records of misconduct for 1 year before and after graduation from the
drug treatment program. He created comparable “before” and “after” misconduct rates for a
comparison group who did not receive the DAP program and adjusted misconduct rates to
control for differing lengths of time in custody before and after graduation. Innes reported a
45% decline in overall misconduct rates for the DAP group and a 23% reduction for the com-
parison group. However, no tests of statistical significance were reported and no matching on
any variables other than time served was reported.
Langan and Pelissier (2002) examined misconduct rates for 600 federal prison inmates
who completed the residential DAP versus a comparison group of 451 inmates who admit-
ted to a history of substance abuse but did not participate in the program. Researchers first
matched the two groups on sentence length. Comparison inmates were then assigned a faux
completion date that would allow them to have the same length of time before and after
graduation as corresponding treatment participants. Using logistic regression, researchers
examined the impact of treatment graduation and several other predictors (e.g., age, gender,
time served, prior incarcerations) on misconduct rates. Using predictors of treatment...